SAD/ASE Lessons Learned
description
Transcript of SAD/ASE Lessons Learned
![Page 1: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
SAD/ASE Lessons Learned
A Safety Re-Assessment at Jefferson Labin Accordance with DOE-O-420.2B
Phil MuttonAugust 13, 2008
![Page 2: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Background
• 2002 Current version Rev 5 (ASE is included in JLab FSAD)• 2005 Accelerator Safety Order (ASO), DOE-0-420.2B
– Establish accelerator-specific safety requirements– Distinguish from other supplementary safety and health
requirements (e.g., Worker Safety and Health Program)– Clearly document analysis, controls, and basis for accelerator
safety envelope• 2006 M&O contract awarded to Jefferson Science Associates• 2007 DOE and Independent reviews of current FSAD• 2008 FSAD Revision 6 Project
– Update FSAD to Rev 6 will achieve ASO compliance
![Page 3: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Final Safety Assessment Document (FSAD) Revision Project
• Findings with respect to the ASO• Update FSAD and Accelerator Safety Envelope (ASE)
– we are here (8/12/08)• Final review and approval of FSAD/ASE• Next steps:
– Revise USI Process– Train staff on FSAD and USI Process
![Page 4: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Current FSAD (rev 5, 2002)
• Largely conclusions– Limited description of the analysis itself– Does not describe accident scenarios
• Limited description of controls or rationale for them• Too much detail of less relevant (industrial safety)
topics• Accelerator Safety Envelope (ASE) includes non-
accelerator related parameters (e.g. FEL laser parameters)
• Basis for the ASE is not described
![Page 5: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The Project to Update the FSAD
• Update FSAD – a learning exercise:– Reorganize per ASO, and address specific omissions,
etc., noted by third party reviewers– 1st draft: clearer, but accident scenarios and rationale
not apparent in many areas– 2nd draft: accident scenarios tabulated and controls
identified, but scenarios and controls not well “connected.” ASE basis (rationale) incomplete
– 3rd (hopefully final) draft: review in progress
![Page 6: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
FSAD Revision 6
• Follows guidance in ASO guide, DOE-G-420.1-2• Updates and expands description of relevant features and
controls (Personnel Safety System, shielding, beam dump cooling, cryogenic systems…)
• Eliminates industrial safety aspects• Adds a table of accident scenarios, identifies bounding cases• Lists Credited Controls vs. other controls (defense in depth)• Refines ASE details and describes ASE basis• Includes Shielding Policy
![Page 7: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Controls
• All credited controls were in place, but were not identified as such in the existing SAD - added in rev 6
• Several administrative controls were inadequately documented (unclear or not readily traceable to requirements:– Surveillance of engineered controls – Excavation controls (near accelerator)– Training– Maintenance
![Page 8: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
If I were to do it again…• Don’t assume the update is just an “adjustment”
– for us this was a re-analysis• Be more self-critical of existing (pre-ASO) SAD• Spend more time up front to understand expectations
behind the ASO and guide– Collaborate with reviewers/approvers on document organization
(for a better first draft)• Start with a clean sheet of paper
– Organize the logic – Do the analysis – Document the analysis
![Page 9: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Organize the Logic
Risk Matrix
Accident Scenarios
ASECredited Controls
Defense in Depth Controls
![Page 10: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Organize the Logic
• Design the document for ease of use– Lay out risk matrix– Define criteria for control levels– Map out the accident scenarios (~45) – start building
the table– Design the controls tables, credited (~25) and defense
in depth (~30)– Design the ASE layout– Map controls to ASE basis– Outline the body of the document for easy cross
referencing to tables
![Page 11: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Do the Analysis• Define assumptions – fixed shielding (e.g. underground)• Populate accident scenarios, controls and ASE tables• Perform calculations, modeling, etc.• Identify or prepare supporting analysis documents
Document the Details• Insert re-usable text into the new outline as appropriate
– eliminate details not relevant to the analysis• Add new analysis and description details to support
conclusions, provide rationale, etc.
![Page 12: SAD/ASE Lessons Learned](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062310/568161d3550346895dd1cc56/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
JLab FSAD Rev 6Are we there yet?
• Ease of Use? – FSAD Rev 6 ~100 pages. I thought this rev would
be shorter (Rev 5 was ~95 pages)• How to judge what should be in a SAD vs. Reference
documents?• Does it address the “audience?”
– safety analysts, USI reviewers, operators, managers, engineers, scientists, and technicians?
• Success will to be judged by the document users